Cruciform
New member
Post #75.
ECT DID JESUS TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
Post #78
Cruciform
New member
Shall we assume, then, that you did a thread search? If not, Post #78 means exactly nothing.
If you, the link meister, had provided an honest answer to this question, you would have done so. That you cannot provide that link is proof positive that you have never provided a specific list of the traditions that Paul was referring to. Post the link or admit that no such list exists.
oatmeal
Well-known member
You are too lazy to type anything other than a link, then I am not interested.
Lazy people never learn what God's word says, they only imagine what they think it says, they have traditions, not truth.
What do you believe?
What traditions, specifically, was Paul referring to?
Why don't you know?
Since you are so excited about tradition, yet cannot show me what traditions Paul was referring to, why is that?
Has your life exceeded the great spiritual stature of the apostle Paul?
Why should I be interested in your traditions since you are not interested in Paul's traditions?
the rock is in rome
oatmeal
Well-known member
oatmeal
Well-known member
There is no question that there is useful information outside of the actual written word of God.
Concordances, lexicons, history, science (true science), cultural studies, language are all useful sources of information to gain a greater understanding of scripture, but they do not replace scripture.
They are tools to understand scripture better.
But only scripture is scripture.
Of course, we cannot exclude revelation from God, I Corinthians 12:7-11 ie, word of wisdom, word of knowledge and discerning of spirits as a source of God given information, but that information will never flow at cross purposes to scripture. Popularly held traditions most always conflict with scripture.
But for the most part, none of that information is for public display as is scripture. Scripture alone is the one source of truth that God provided for the full examination by the public, although that is not God's primary purpose for it.
II Timothy 3:16-17 is.
How do I know this? I was taught scripture by some of the greatest teachers of scripture in many generations. People, men and women, that truly hungered and thirsted for righteousness
Concordances, lexicons, history, science (true science), cultural studies, language are all useful sources of information to gain a greater understanding of scripture, but they do not replace scripture.
They are tools to understand scripture better.
But only scripture is scripture.
Of course, we cannot exclude revelation from God, I Corinthians 12:7-11 ie, word of wisdom, word of knowledge and discerning of spirits as a source of God given information, but that information will never flow at cross purposes to scripture. Popularly held traditions most always conflict with scripture.
But for the most part, none of that information is for public display as is scripture. Scripture alone is the one source of truth that God provided for the full examination by the public, although that is not God's primary purpose for it.
II Timothy 3:16-17 is.
How do I know this? I was taught scripture by some of the greatest teachers of scripture in many generations. People, men and women, that truly hungered and thirsted for righteousness
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
The bottom line, Catholicism is a man made cult. In the end, all they can do is state "because we say so". This is why they love traditions of men, because you can make up any garbage you like, to advance that cult power over people. They don't exist in the Bible, and their testimony is of themselves: they create their own authority, which is of man, not God. Don't expect answers that don't exist, when you shine a critical light on them. It's like he keeps calling the faith of the Bible invented, claws at Sola Scriptura, the very word of God. You quote scripture, it's an invented faith. They say this of the original faith of scripture. They're simply beyond absurd, no such thing as an intelligent conversation. So don't hold your breath for any Christian answers.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Faulty comparison. You are assuming non-exclusivity and importing that into your example (by the means of water). The text in Isaiah is absolutely making the assertion (using your comparison) that ONLY water translates to life. You said "needs ONLY water" when the verse in scripture isn't talking about a need, it is addressing whether something IS truth or not. So the term "needs" introduces confusion. That's why your example is faulty. Because it IS saying what you are assuming it can't. I don't know if that's a straw man or begging the question or a straw beggar...
Summary :
1. Sola implies absolute exclusivity.
2. "...needs ONLY..." does not imply exclusivity - just that this is one necessary component
3. The scripture in Isaiah implies absolute exclusivity (If not L&T then NOT scripture - therefore ONLY L&T=scripture)
4. Thus, you are importing the pre-conception that it has to be non-exclusive when the text says otherwise.
Cruciform
New member
So your answer to Post #83 is "no." Thus, the rest of the post applies.
Cruciform
New member
If you are too lazy to click on a link, then I am not interested in answering you.
Cruciform
New member
And only Tradition is Tradition, which is also "the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 3:15).
Ladies and gentleman, Cruciform has just provided definitive proof that neither he nor his vaunted RCC can provide a list of the specific traditions Paul was referring to in his letter to the Theselonians. The interested reader can draw their own conclusions about what thus means for Catholic traditions.
Cruciform
New member
The bottom line, WLJ's chosen recently-invented non-Catholic denomination is a man made sect. In the end, all they can do is state "because my sect says so". This is why they love traditions of men (for example, sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, sola fide, a 66-book biblical canon, "once-saved-always-saved," etc.), because you can make up any garbage you like (like the man-made traditions just mentioned), to advance that sect's power over people. They don't exist in the Bible, and their testimony is of themselves: they create their own authority, which is of man, not God. Don't expect answers that don't exist, when you shine a critical light on them.
Thanks, you've perfectly described the entire Protestant movement. :up:
Sorry, but your preferred interpretations of the Bible are decidedly NOT "the faith of the Bible." There's a huge difference between the two. Try again.
On the contrary. Try again.
Rather, WLJ's preferred interpretations are invented. Big difference there.
Again: WLJ's favored interpretations do not constitute "the original faith of Scripture," since they didn't even exist until a mere few centuries ago at best. Big difference there.
"intelligent" = "whatever happens to agree with the entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions of WLJ's chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect"
:yawn:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Already answered (Post #92).
Cruciform
New member
In fact, you are assuming exclusivity and reading that into the biblical text. This is undeniably demonstrated in the fact that the New Testament teaches that there is another form of Divine Revelation (God's word)---another besides the written texts---which is authoritative and binding upon believers. For info, see this.
...thus employing a petitio principii (i.e., question begging) fallacy.
"...equals Old Testament Scripture," you mean. Therefore, your argument becomes: "sola Old Testament." In short: "The Old Testament is our sole rule of faith and practice."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Don't get the cart ahead of the horse - one thing at a time here. If scripture can point to sola scriptura, then all of this (i.e. tradition) is not finally binding on the conscience of the believer. Using just the passage I referenced, show me how it is not supporting sola scriptura. I believe I showed how it does (the text itself). Am I wrong? If so, where?
The only reason for the mention of sola was to restate in different terms. Sola means "only" and, therefore, implies exclusivity (which is the reason there is a Roman Catholic objection to sola scriptura in the first place). So my statement was not begging the question - just restating the same thing using a different (but equivalent) term.
Not completely. If the OT is accepted as scripture (let's just say the Law and the Testimony for now to be consistent with the verse in question) because of the clear Divine origin, then whatever it points to (directly) is also scripture. Jesus was foretold in the OT scriptures and so their fulfillment in Him brings yet another confirmation - a significant one - to bear upon them. Jesus taught as well and many recorded His teaching. He sent (directly sent) many out as His apostles. What they taught can be considered valid scripture. That there is no warrant to consider as scripture those things taught by those beyond the apostles should be taken from verses like Acts 1:21-22. It is an historical record of the understanding of who was considered an apostle (in the full sense) and who wasn't. Only those apostle carried the equivalent of the NT prophetic mantle as Ephesians 3:5, 2 Timothy 3:2, Rev 2:2 and Rev 18:20 bear out. And 2 Peter 3:16 calls Paul's writing scripture. Revelation 21:14 displays the peculiar place of honor the 12 apostles had as being foundations (along with Christ).
Now contrast that with tradition. The only time it is spoken of favorably is when it is something handed down directly by one of the apostles (2 Thess 2:15 and 2 Thess 3:6 --> 3:7 is even more blatant in who to follow). Paul is specifically speaking ("us") of the original apostles. While teachers and even (possibly) something of the prophetic office might continue, scripture was the only basis ever laid for the foundation of establishing an objective basis for Truth.
So once you can show where my logic in reading exclusivity (in terms of scripture) into Isaiah 8:20 fails, I don't see where tradition is an argument. Without sola scriptura, the whole basis (at the foundation) of what tradition is accepted and what isn't loses any solid footing that I can see.
EDIT : Again, please note that Isaiah 8:19-20 is solid support for the sola aspect of sola scriptura. I still see no good rebuttal for that. Defining scripture is the second part of the issue.
Last edited:
HisServant
New member
Jesus didn't... but he promised that the Holy Spirit would be given and lead us into all truth.
Given the above you have to content with whether you believe the Holy Spirit has worked to produce the scriptures and whether he has worked within the Roman Catholic Church.
Since the RCC has added so much to scripture... to the point where you have to split hairs to try and harmonize their doctrines... I think its pretty clear that scripture is superior to the RCC and that the RCC has strayed.
In the end, we are told to judge anyone supposedly in authority in the Church and to have nothing to do with them if they teach anything contrary to the Holy Spirit... the RCC has made that impossible by setting itself up as a god itself.
Given the above you have to content with whether you believe the Holy Spirit has worked to produce the scriptures and whether he has worked within the Roman Catholic Church.
Since the RCC has added so much to scripture... to the point where you have to split hairs to try and harmonize their doctrines... I think its pretty clear that scripture is superior to the RCC and that the RCC has strayed.
In the end, we are told to judge anyone supposedly in authority in the Church and to have nothing to do with them if they teach anything contrary to the Holy Spirit... the RCC has made that impossible by setting itself up as a god itself.